Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But I can still believe that

You can believe anything you want.

Having the statline of a Phoenix Lord doesn't prove he's Arhra though. Karandras has the statline of a Phoenix Lord (hurr durr) and he was Arhra's student.

Is Karandras not a Phoenix Lord then?

Yes, thus the "hurr durr".

I beg your pardon for being relatively inferior, but whats 'hurr durr?

Brother Hestapheus wrote:I beg your pardon for being relatively inferior, but whats 'hurr durr?

It's meant to be the sound of a dumb person thinking afaik.

I am I being called stupid?

Brother Hestapheus wrote:I am I being called stupid?

No. He is basically saying that you can't use stats to make a fluff judgement.

Good. I hate it when I'm being verbally abused and I don't know it

I said 'hurr durr' for stating that the Phoenix Lord Karandras has Phoenix Lord stats. I was mocking my own stupidly obvious statement.

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Good. I hate it when I'm being verbally abused and I don't know it

You didn't seem to mind all the other times!

I do apologize and I am sure you are highly intelligent

Rube wrote:I said 'hurr durr' for stating that the Phoenix Lord Karandras has Phoenix Lord stats. I was mocking my own stupidly obvious statement.

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Good. I hate it when I'm being verbally abused and I don't know it

You didn't seem to mind all the other times!

Heh. I saw what you did there.

Zatsuku wrote:A couple of things:

1. Drazhar has the exact stats of one of the phoenix lords from the eldar codex.
2. The Incubi are basically aspect warriors, they have shrines, focus solely on combat, and the klaivex like an exarch gives powers to their squad. Also I think the codex mentions them having statues to Khaine.
3. One of the theories of the other Incubi is that Drazhar is their founder Ahra, who was the original founder of the Striking Scorpions.

Drazhr's armor is also different from that of the Incubi, a fact that's noted in the codex.

Purple; The most solid evidence of the Incubi being founded by Arhra would be the new Codex... Which outright States it in no uncertain terms.

Dark Eldar Codex Page 52, second paragraph, third sentence:

Some say he is Arhra, the fabled father of the Incubi incarnate

Kommissar Kel wrote:Purple; The most solid evidence of the Incubi being founded by Arhra would be the new Codex... Which outright States it in no uncertain terms.

Dark Eldar Codex Page 52, second paragraph, third sentence:

Some say he is Arhra, the fabled father of the Incubi incarnate

Funny that because it is uncertain.
"Some say"
Basically means it's a rumour.
If me and 200 people said that the moon was a giant cardboard cut out i could then say "Some say the moon is a giant cardboard cut out" that doesn't make it true it merely puts the idea out there.
I will admit there are hints for believing Arha is Drazhar or whatever it is we're arguing right now but not enough to comprehensivly say.

"Some say" that he taught an Ork Warboss ballet. All we know is, he's called Drazhar.

Emperors Faithful wrote:"Some say" that he taught an Ork Warboss ballet. All we know is, he's called Drazhar.

Top Gear references make everything better.

The new codex appears to confirm that Arha did indeed found the Incubi - something that was merely hinted at before now.

It also indicates that there are rumors that Drahza is Arha, but doesn't provide any further information either way.

No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

They mean some say he is Arha. Who is the fabled founder of the incubi. No that some say arha is th fabled founder of the incubi,

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

I bet he is Ahra

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

It doesn't.
It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"
That means that some people think he might be Arha who incidentlly created the Incubi.
It doesn't say "He is Arha the fabled father of the Incubi" or anything like it

purplefood wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

It doesn't.
It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"
That means that some people think he might be Arha who incidentlly created the Incubi.
It doesn't say "He is Arha the fabled father of the Incubi" or anything like it

But what they're arguing is that he may or might not be Arha. Not that Arha may or not be the Incubi founder.

Purple: RC Fail.

"Some say" is stating that he may or may not be Arhra, that Arhra founded the Incubi is fact, that drahzar may or may not be Arhra is still rumor.

Let me give you an example of how this works, but I will first preface my example with a few statements:
1) The following is an example of the above statement for illustrative purposes only.
2) My mother is jewish, the subject of the following statement is again for illustrative purposes.

"Some say I am Hitler, a man responsible for slaughtering millions of jews"

The first part is conjecture, rumor, or hearsay; the second part is historical fact.

He is one of the fallen Phoenix lords.

Well, thanks for clearing that up, Aherian Command. I am sure everyone who has posted in this thread will be relieved you arrived.

To everyone else - Jes and Phil, and everyone else at GW have left it deliberately open up to interpretation and conjecture. This is exactly the sort of conversation they are hoping to generate.

It is impossible for anyone to say whether he is or is not, because Jes and Phil have decided that no-one knows, either in W40K, or in the real world.

purplefood wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

purplefood wrote:No it doesn't.
It says some people say it, i'm sorry to shatter people illusions but just because a book says someone says it that doesn't make it proof.

Yes, it does.

The quote mentioned above states two things. The first is that Drazha is *rumored* to be Arha. It then explains that Arha *is* the founder of the Incubi.

The first is the maybe. The second is stated as *fact*.

It doesn't.
It says "Some say he is Arha, the fabled father of the incubi"
That means that some people think he might be Arha who incidentlly created the Incubi.
It doesn't say "He is Arha the fabled father of the Incubi" or anything like it

Er...

No offense, but I think you've become so focused on arguing that you're not actually taking the time to read what you're responding to. You pretty much just said exactly what I did, but claimed that our statements were not in agreement.

Thank you for proving me right!

Brother Hestapheus wrote:Thank you for proving me right!

WE AREN'T! ALL WE PROVED WAS THAT ARHA IS THE FOUNDER OF THE INCUBI!!
GERGBRA!

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.